FabSwingers.com mobile

Join us FREE, we're FREE to use

Web's largest swingers site since 2006.

Already registered?
Login here

Back to forum list
Back to The Lounge

TV Pick: The VIP Paedophile Ring: What's the Truth?

Jump to newest
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago

This will be an interesting program. Panorama is investigating what is happening in the heart of the political establishment and find out the truth, will you also tune in? Its on bbc1 10.35pm.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I'll watch this on my commute tomorrow morning

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I could be wrong but I expect it'll name deceased VIPs and remain silent on any still alive ...

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *iewMan
Forum Mod
over a year ago

Angus & Findhorn

I will watch on catch up

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"I could be wrong but I expect it'll name deceased VIPs and remain silent on any still alive ... "

And hopefully address the lost evidence.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Will Sir Cliff 'Kitty' Richard finally be outed? What about several senior politicians...?

I very much doubt it but the more it's reported on the better.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Will Sir Cliff 'Kitty' Richard finally be outed? What about several senior politicians...?

I very much doubt it but the more it's reported on the better."

Cliff Richard probably won't be discussed as his case is to be re_iewed by the CPS over the next few days.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Will Sir Cliff 'Kitty' Richard finally be outed? What about several senior politicians...?

I very much doubt it but the more it's reported on the better.

Cliff Richard probably won't be discussed as his case is to be re_iewed by the CPS over the next few days. "

No doubt nothing will come of it....

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ouple in LancashireCouple
over a year ago

in Lancashire


"Will Sir Cliff 'Kitty' Richard finally be outed? What about several senior politicians...?

I very much doubt it but the more it's reported on the better."

maybe you could pass on what you know to the authorities..?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Will Sir Cliff 'Kitty' Richard finally be outed? What about several senior politicians...?

I very much doubt it but the more it's reported on the better.

maybe you could pass on what you know to the authorities..?

"

Pretty sure the authorities know all about him and many others - just not willing to do anything about it.

Jimmy Saville was the tip of the iceberg!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

.....or just possibly, there was no VIP paedophile ring or certainly not one as extensive as the media (and particularly social media) has led us to believe.

The danger is that where once celebrity figures like Saville were allowed free reign now we as a society are suspicious of anyone who is/was just a little "different"- unmarried, homosexual, eccentric etc....I wouldn't be surprised if there is little or no actual evidence and the usual conspiracy theorists have simply managed to tap into a collective neurosis about "establishment" to spin their horror stories.

Hope I'm right

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ouple in LancashireCouple
over a year ago

in Lancashire


"Will Sir Cliff 'Kitty' Richard finally be outed? What about several senior politicians...?

I very much doubt it but the more it's reported on the better.

maybe you could pass on what you know to the authorities..?

Pretty sure the authorities know all about him and many others - just not willing to do anything about it.

Jimmy Saville was the tip of the iceberg!"

thing is do you not think that if the authorities 'know all about him' that they may have acted upon what they 'know'..

everybody and that includes you and I have the right not to be proven guilty by internet gossip yes..?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago

It started

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ouple in LancashireCouple
over a year ago

in Lancashire

Fantasies from some people who have had not the best start in their lives but certainly no smoking gun..

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


".....or just possibly, there was no VIP paedophile ring or certainly not one as extensive as the media (and particularly social media) has led us to believe.

The danger is that where once celebrity figures like Saville were allowed free reign now we as a society are suspicious of anyone who is/was just a little "different"- unmarried, homosexual, eccentric etc....I wouldn't be surprised if there is little or no actual evidence and the usual conspiracy theorists have simply managed to tap into a collective neurosis about "establishment" to spin their horror stories.

Hope I'm right"

this

A sense of perspective is a good thing. Too many have been too quick to pass judgement. Sadly people don't learn from history - the witch hunt we have seen recently is reminiscent of the Cleveland sex scandal, the Sam Sheppard case, even the Salem witch trials. All cases where public hysteria led to massive miscarriages. People, please learn

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


".....or just possibly, there was no VIP paedophile ring or certainly not one as extensive as the media (and particularly social media) has led us to believe.

The danger is that where once celebrity figures like Saville were allowed free reign now we as a society are suspicious of anyone who is/was just a little "different"- unmarried, homosexual, eccentric etc....I wouldn't be surprised if there is little or no actual evidence and the usual conspiracy theorists have simply managed to tap into a collective neurosis about "establishment" to spin their horror stories.

Hope I'm right

this

A sense of perspective is a good thing. Too many have been too quick to pass judgement. Sadly people don't learn from history - the witch hunt we have seen recently is reminiscent of the Cleveland sex scandal, the Sam Sheppard case, even the Salem witch trials. All cases where public hysteria led to massive miscarriages. People, please learn"

Just don't name suspects until they are convicted.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


".....or just possibly, there was no VIP paedophile ring or certainly not one as extensive as the media (and particularly social media) has led us to believe.

The danger is that where once celebrity figures like Saville were allowed free reign now we as a society are suspicious of anyone who is/was just a little "different"- unmarried, homosexual, eccentric etc....I wouldn't be surprised if there is little or no actual evidence and the usual conspiracy theorists have simply managed to tap into a collective neurosis about "establishment" to spin their horror stories.

Hope I'm right

this

A sense of perspective is a good thing. Too many have been too quick to pass judgement. Sadly people don't learn from history - the witch hunt we have seen recently is reminiscent of the Cleveland sex scandal, the Sam Sheppard case, even the Salem witch trials. All cases where public hysteria led to massive miscarriages. People, please learn

Just don't name suspects until they are convicted."

The argument against that is where you have a serial offender. Sadly I think that idea leads to more miscarriages than anything. Too many are too keen to believe the worst. Like Ted Heath. Isn't he supposed to have been involved in the abuse and murder of kids in Jersey? I find it amazing that such wild claims are taken seriously - yet they are.

We need balanced and impartial policing - and that goes for all of us, not just the police force itself. After posting above, I remembered the McMartin case in America: a terrible case where a family running a nursery were suspected of child abuse en masse. It took years to clear their names. The police had blinkers on and prejudged them. Just as ours did with Stefan Kisko. And so many others. I do agree that not naming suspects prior to conviction - save for extreme cases - is a step in the right direction

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *iewMan
Forum Mod
over a year ago

Angus & Findhorn


".....or just possibly, there was no VIP paedophile ring or certainly not one as extensive as the media (and particularly social media) has led us to believe.

The danger is that where once celebrity figures like Saville were allowed free reign now we as a society are suspicious of anyone who is/was just a little "different"- unmarried, homosexual, eccentric etc....I wouldn't be surprised if there is little or no actual evidence and the usual conspiracy theorists have simply managed to tap into a collective neurosis about "establishment" to spin their horror stories.

Hope I'm right

this

A sense of perspective is a good thing. Too many have been too quick to pass judgement. Sadly people don't learn from history - the witch hunt we have seen recently is reminiscent of the Cleveland sex scandal, the Sam Sheppard case, even the Salem witch trials. All cases where public hysteria led to massive miscarriages. People, please learn

Just don't name suspects until they are convicted.

The argument against that is where you have a serial offender. Sadly I think that idea leads to more miscarriages than anything. Too many are too keen to believe the worst. Like Ted Heath. Isn't he supposed to have been involved in the abuse and murder of kids in Jersey? I find it amazing that such wild claims are taken seriously - yet they are.

We need balanced and impartial policing - and that goes for all of us, not just the police force itself. After posting above, I remembered the McMartin case in America: a terrible case where a family running a nursery were suspected of child abuse en masse. It took years to clear their names. The police had blinkers on and prejudged them. Just as ours did with Stefan Kisko. And so many others. I do agree that not naming suspects prior to conviction - save for extreme cases - is a step in the right direction "

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

It's on the BBC the same company that hid Jimmy Saville. You really expecting people to be outed??

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ouple in LancashireCouple
over a year ago

in Lancashire


"It's on the BBC the same company that hid Jimmy Saville. You really expecting people to be outed??"

perhaps watch it and see what you think?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


".....or just possibly, there was no VIP paedophile ring or certainly not one as extensive as the media (and particularly social media) has led us to believe.

The danger is that where once celebrity figures like Saville were allowed free reign now we as a society are suspicious of anyone who is/was just a little "different"- unmarried, homosexual, eccentric etc....I wouldn't be surprised if there is little or no actual evidence and the usual conspiracy theorists have simply managed to tap into a collective neurosis about "establishment" to spin their horror stories.

Hope I'm right

this

A sense of perspective is a good thing. Too many have been too quick to pass judgement. Sadly people don't learn from history - the witch hunt we have seen recently is reminiscent of the Cleveland sex scandal, the Sam Sheppard case, even the Salem witch trials. All cases where public hysteria led to massive miscarriages. People, please learn

Just don't name suspects until they are convicted.

The argument against that is where you have a serial offender. Sadly I think that idea leads to more miscarriages than anything. Too many are too keen to believe the worst. Like Ted Heath. Isn't he supposed to have been involved in the abuse and murder of kids in Jersey? I find it amazing that such wild claims are taken seriously - yet they are.

We need balanced and impartial policing - and that goes for all of us, not just the police force itself. After posting above, I remembered the McMartin case in America: a terrible case where a family running a nursery were suspected of child abuse en masse. It took years to clear their names. The police had blinkers on and prejudged them. Just as ours did with Stefan Kisko. And so many others. I do agree that not naming suspects prior to conviction - save for extreme cases - is a step in the right direction "

That is the argument in favour of naming suspects. Our justice system is based on the principle of innocent until proven guilty. Naming a suspect before a trial is a terrible travesty of this. Their reputation will be tarnished forever.

I am all for the sympathetic treatment of potential victims but I simply cannot understand why the police continue to name potential abusers in the hope that they will find it easier to prosecute. It is their job to find evidence without causing infinite damage. They have as much duty to the accused as the accuser.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ouple in LancashireCouple
over a year ago

in Lancashire


"

That is the argument in favour of naming suspects. Our justice system is based on the principle of innocent until proven guilty. Naming a suspect before a trial is a terrible travesty of this. Their reputation will be tarnished forever.

I am all for the sympathetic treatment of potential victims but I simply cannot understand why the police continue to name potential abusers in the hope that they will find it easier to prosecute. It is their job to find evidence without causing infinite damage. They have as much duty to the accused as the accuser."

its a dilemma but many of the victims of historical sexual abuse certainly in Stuart Hall's case and maybe Max Clifford only came forward when it became public they were under investigation..

and possibly without their evidence those 2 may have walked free..?

having said that i also see that naming someone who then is found innocent will for those people have a further effect upon them..

given the historical cover ups and the still ongoing investigations into other 'investigations' in the past i cant see that the authorities will be minded to change how they are currently doing things..

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *erbyDalesCplCouple
over a year ago

Derbyshire

Some people are so cynical.

So a Labour minister, in conjunction with a Labour councillor, conspired to fabricate some dirt on the Tory party months before an election "for a joke"? Next you'll be trying to tell me Gordon Brown tried the same trick with his pet attack-dogs... oh wait, he did that too

That's the sad part of socialism, they'd be far more likely to win the political argument if they simply stuck to facts and stopped all this nonsense. It just turns off the very people they need to win over.

Mr ddc

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ouple in LancashireCouple
over a year ago

in Lancashire


"Some people are so cynical.

So a Labour minister, in conjunction with a Labour councillor, conspired to fabricate some dirt on the Tory party months before an election "for a joke"? Next you'll be trying to tell me Gordon Brown tried the same trick with his pet attack-dogs... oh wait, he did that too

That's the sad part of socialism, they'd be far more likely to win the political argument if they simply stuck to facts and stopped all this nonsense. It just turns off the very people they need to win over.

Mr ddc"

It certainly looks like Tom Watson has been either duped by some of the victims that panorama investigated or he has been malicious in using what he thought he knew..

his conduct over Leon Brittan has been shoddy indeed..

having said that dirty tricks in politics is not something only carried out by one side..

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"

That is the argument in favour of naming suspects. Our justice system is based on the principle of innocent until proven guilty. Naming a suspect before a trial is a terrible travesty of this. Their reputation will be tarnished forever.

I am all for the sympathetic treatment of potential victims but I simply cannot understand why the police continue to name potential abusers in the hope that they will find it easier to prosecute. It is their job to find evidence without causing infinite damage. They have as much duty to the accused as the accuser.

its a dilemma but many of the victims of historical sexual abuse certainly in Stuart Hall's case and maybe Max Clifford only came forward when it became public they were under investigation..

and possibly without their evidence those 2 may have walked free..?

having said that i also see that naming someone who then is found innocent will for those people have a further effect upon them..

given the historical cover ups and the still ongoing investigations into other 'investigations' in the past i cant see that the authorities will be minded to change how they are currently doing things.. "

Sorry. No. AFTER the initial conviction, other victims could have come forward, leading to other convictions.

There is no excuse for naming suspects before a conviction.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
Post new Message to Thread
back to top